Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the way in which the housing and neighbourhood accessibility and neighbourhood connectedness of older lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people aged 50 and over, differ compared to non-LGB older people.

This paper utilises data collected as part of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing as well as theories around social exclusion to explore these issues, using information from 5,442 survey respondents including 260 identified as LGB.

Little evidence is uncovered of a link between being LGB and experiencing exclusion from decent housing, public transport or neighbourhood amenities. Significant differences were uncovered in levels of home ownership and the numbers who reported having seen a friend the previous day, the likelihood of which were both lower for LGB people compared to non-LGB people.

All analyses are subject to caveats around the size of the sample and the method of identifying LGB older people. The findings could suggest older LGB people may be less likely to have property wealth from which to draw down in retirement. Furthermore, the findings on older LGB people being less likely to have seen a friend the previous day, may suggest a need for more opportunities to be made available for LGB people to maintain their social networks closer to home to offset the risk of social isolation.

This is one of the first studies to examine how the housing and neighbourhood accessibility and connectedness patterns of older LGB people differ from non-LGB people in the UK.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how minority stress and the experience of societal level hostility towards lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people and their relationships may have impacted upon their relationships and relationship histories.

This paper introduced the minority stress framework and examines the relationship histories of a small cohort aged 50 at the last sweep of data collection.

The minority stress framework states that societal level hostility will lead to unequal treatment and psychological distress among minority groups, which could impact on their relationships histories. In these data, those people we identify as being LGB were significantly more likely to have had a higher number of cohabiting partnerships, were less likely to have had longer-term cohabiting relationships, and were less likely to be in a relationship at age 50. This is despite LGB people placing an equal importance on partnership and marriage. These results are accompanied by caveats, but the authors conclude that if minority stress does impact upon relationships, it is upon the stability and length of relationships.

Compared to older LGB couples, opposite sex couples, are more likely to have been in receipt of peer and especially familial support for their relationship, particularly around times of relationship crisis. Additionally, for those same sex couples that did approach professional sources of support, such as couple counselling, heteronormative and even hostile attitudes from counselling providers may have meant that experienced and informed support was not available when needed. The findings therefore pose a challenge to service providers to ensure that relationship support and allied services are available and adapted to meet the needs of older LGB people, whose previous contacts with these service providers may have been substantially less than positive, and whose need for relationship support may be greater.

The needs of older LGB people and their relationships are often overlooked. The use of a small sample of cohort data to examine these issues provides new insight into the way in which older LGB people may age differently to non-LGB people.